Talk:Columbia River/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Detailed flow-rate figures from 1910s

Names of river

This river was once called the Oregon River, and the Great River of the West. Should we have these in the opening somewhere? Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Russian and Spanish names for it, and the French form of Oregon Ouragon.....there's also the name Tacoutche Tesse, which was what Simon Fraser thought the upper now-Fraser River was, but I've never been clear as to whether that term (which supposedly means "great river" but I don't know in which language; doesn't look like Carrier to me...) referred to that stretch of the Fraser, or was a name used in fur trader-parlance to refer to the Columbia, maybe garnered from David Thmopson...considering that it might be a term from Thompson ,I suppose the language could be Ktunaxa but that's just a speculation.....the opening still only gives the Chinookan name (which IIRC isn't the CJ name but I'll look into that), but there's still the Methow/Okanagan/Colville and Wasco/Wishram names etc to consider/find.....bearing in mind that native toponymical terms usually applied only locally, i.e. t he concept of a single river is something of an introduced idea, i.e. the idea that a stream has a name from source to mouth.....that Chinook term wihml only means "big river" and conceivably was just contextual rather than a name....Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to incorporating other names into the article, though in general I'm not sure if the lead section is the best place…if we can get enough cited names, maybe it would be worth considering doing a short separate section, and linking to a new article? -Pete (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't heard the name Wimahl before seeing it here. A google search on Wimahl -wikipedia turns up very little other than that HistoryLink.org essay cited here (and apparently some businesses in Astoria). The parenthetical statement breaks up the flow of the very first sentence, which is kinda too bad. I wouldn't mind seeing it go, or perhaps get moved to the history section. But I don't feel too strongly about it one way or the other. There could be a section about the names of the river, from indigenous ones to things like Oregon, exploration-important ones like Tacoutche Tesse, and how the name Columbia was applied to many other things, like British Columbia. But I'm not sure if it's important enough to get into that much. Pfly (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

Pfly, you removed the following sentence, saying it's disputed at best. My recollection was that we had an extensive discussion about this, and determined this phrasing was accurate and uncontroversial. Did I miss something? It seems to me that the "feat" of breaching the Cascades is worth noting somewhere.

Along with the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California and the Pit River in northern California, the Columbia is one of only three rivers to pass through the Cascades.

-Pete (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We did talk about it and if I recall correctly I thought it was accurate and uncontroversial too. But I've noticed that the Klamath River page has since been changed to read [The Klamath] is one of only a few rivers that cut through the Cascade Range - the Pit, Rogue, Umpqua, and Columbia being the others. I'm not sure if I quite agree about the Rogue and Umpqua, but what do I know? I thought that if the claim was going to be made then the pages on the other rivers ought to be in agreement at least. Perhaps I was too bold lazy about just removing the text. I'll look for a source--it's not entirely clear what "pass through the Cascades" means. If the Umpqua and Rogue pass through, then perhaps the Skagit River does too. If "pass through" means cross the "crest" or watershed divide, then by definition no rivers other than the Columbia do so. All of this is perhaps nitpicky, but when looking over things with FA in mind and seeing the unsourced claim with different claims on other pages...seemed easiest to just zap it. But I will try to look into it and see what I can find. (or, perhaps the statement can be reworded somehow--the Columbia breaches the mountains in a much larger way than any of the other rivers, which all have only a small bit of headwaters arguably east of the range; but I'm not sure how to word it offhand...) Pfly (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well so far I have not been able to find a source with explicit statements about rivers that cut through the Cascades, other than many mirrors of Wikipedia. It it not hard to find sources that say the Rogue, Umpqua, and the Klamath rivers originate in the Cascades however. I'll keep looking. Perhaps the statement could be phrased something like: The Columbia is the only river that completely breaches the Cascade Range. Maybe with an additional sentence like: All other rivers that flow through the Cascades also originate there. ...or something to that effect. Pfly (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I like that line of thinking. The "breach" is so significant, it just seems it must be stated in some form...and maybe we're getting closer to the right way to state it. -Pete (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I like what you did with this. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Readability

I think the following chunk of text, from the "Course" section (the article's first section) should be moved, for two reasons. First, I think this sort of data is more appropriate to the "Watershed" section (which might more properly be titled "Drainage basin," but that's another question). Second though, and more importantly: it does not make for very inviting text, and at the very outset of the article, makes the reader wade through a lot of facts and figures, rather than getting a strong feel for the subject of the article.

We worked hard on the text in this section a while back, and I think the outcome was that we tell a compelling story (to whatever degree that's possible) about the river from its headwaters to the Pacific. The sentence about the headwaters needs to be at or very near the beginning of a section on the river's course. Thoughts?


And that final sentence should go somewhere else too, though I'm not sure where. Do we just need a section on the name, as discussed above??

-Pete (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes that I think address this (moving much of the data to the end of the section).

Northwest Passage exploration

I'm pretty sure we intentionally removed reference to certain explorers like Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra and Francisco de Eliza, because they did not specifically explore the Columbia. Which is fine, but what we've lost is the overall concept that most of the exploration (Spanish and British especially) of the northwest coast in the late 18th century was an attempt to discover a Northwest Passage. As it stands, the NWP is mentioned only after the discovery, as though the idea came only after the discovery of the river. This needs to be massaged a bit. -Pete (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence that I believe addresses this. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Detail

The following sentence should have consistent metric unit; not sure if square meters or hectares is the better choice. Also not sure how to best use the {{convert}} template in this case. Any thoughts? ...Finetooth? -Pete (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "following sentence" refers to, but I'll look for it. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Dangit, must have forgotten to paste it, and now I have no idea what I was referring to...sorry! If it's significant, maybe somebody else will spot it. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I think I found it. It was " ...for instance, for every acre (0.40 ha) of wetland damaged by the project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must restore 12 acres (4.9 ha) of wetland." I changed 4000 acres to 0.40 ha for consistency within the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's just the one -- thanks! -Pete (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Effects of climate change

The one-paragraph section below seems like a non-sequitur. There may be something worth salvaging, but I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate any relevant points into the text, rather than having a separate section. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

I wish I had noticed before that the images lack alt text, which will be needed for FA. The alt text is for readers with visual impairments who depend on special reading devices to peruse Wikipedia. The alt text is not the same as the caption and appears as a separate parameter inside the brackets that include the caption. I'll try to add these today, but I've only had a little practice with alt texts. I certainly wouldn't mind if other editors helped with this. WP:ALT has details. Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done the first 14. I'm planning to do the remaining 10 tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

The dabfinder tool finds no problems with disambiguation. However, a link checker finds dead urls in citations 10, 12, 25, and 65. I don't know what to replace them with since I've concentrated on nitpicks rather than content. Maybe Pete or Pfly or someone else can find replacements for the dead urls? Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. 10 is probably pretty easy to replace, it just states where the Pend Oreille conflues with the Columbia. (Like how I just coined that?) 12 is a bit of a concern, it's a pretty important document and I think pretty essential to this article. Since that was a 2nd draft, maybe they just published the final without a redirect on the web site. A little digging turned this up; must look into it more closely. 25, argh!! Another important source, looks like the gov't has just lost track. They probably have the same info posted somewhere else though, will take a little research. 65: arg!!! Looks to be completely gone. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The two dead links in "External links" I think we could just delete. A couple of BC Hydro links are dead, and that might mean that BC Hydro has changed urls. I could look for those, if you like, Pete, or maybe Pfly or Skookum would know where they've gone to. Finetooth (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I found and fixed one, the BC Hydro generation page. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have now found live urls or reasonable replacements for several more dead links. I don't think there are too many left. I've got to take a break, though. Might not get back to this again until tomorrow (Thursday). Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you check the Internet Archive (at Archive.org) to see if any of the currently dead links are archived there? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, but I have now, and it found the two that were still eluding me. Thanks much for the reminder. Confession: this is the first time I've used the Wayback Machine for anything. How handy! Finetooth (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonneville Slide and Bridge of the Gods

The dates related to the Bridge of the Gods are confusing, and I think it will take careful research, probably at the library, to get it straightened out. There is so much non-scientific writing out there, the ranges I've seen for the bridge's formation are from 1200 to 1760, and estimates of its destruction seem to range from a few months to a few centuries. I suspect there is a rough consensus among geologists, and for this article, I think it would be really good to learn what that consensus is, and cite scientific sources on this matter rather than popular retellings. Anyone have good books that might cover this? I can get to the library probably this afternoon if necessary. -Pete (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple online sources I found that are not included in this article:

  • Ellen Morris Bishop, a contemporary Oregon geologist, (Ph.D., Oregon State University) says, "Unpublished carbon-14 dates, based on the trees buried or drowned by the slide, suggest that the Bridge of the Gods landslide, just above Bonneville Dam, occurred in the fifteenth century or earlier. It may have coincided with a great earthquake in the 1400s, or it may have been triggered by a cause unrelated to subduction zones and shaking ground. Although the fifteenth-century dates seem reliable, some geologists harbor suspicions that this massive slide was more recent, triggered by the great quake of 1700." She goes on to mention that the slide dammed the river, allowed people to walk across it, and gave rise to Chinookan legends about volcanic eruptions and shaking ground. She also quotes William Clark's notes about the debris at the site in 1805. I doubt that you will find anything more definitive than this in the library. This material is on pp. 252–53 of In Search of Ancient Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I was recently reading some books with geology sections that dealt well with uncertainty and conflicting opinions among geologists. I'll see if the style might be adapted for this... Pfly (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I waded through as many sources as I could find and think I can summarize the date estimates, with earlier estimates tending toward 1100, later ones 1500-1760, and most recently some tending toward 1450-1550 and others toward 1700 or so. The c.1500 date estimates seem less scholarly (unpublished radiocarbon results, sketchy arguments) and the c.1700 estimate well done. I'll post more details over at Talk:Bridge of the Gods (land bridge). Pfly (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've managed to make some edits to Bridge of the Gods (land bridge). Some of the info could be used here, but I can't get to it right now. The text about the Bonneville Slide on this page looks fine--better than the Bridge of the Gods page was at least. I might change the "as early as 1200" date to 1060, indicated by Lawrence's work, or reword to "approximately 1100", as Miner claimed and Reynolds said has been "often cited". And I might change the "more recent" date of 1760 to the range 1670-1760, cited to Reynolds. Perhaps reword the sentences: The Cascadia earthquake in 1700 may have been related to either the bridge's formation or its destruction. The resulting land bridge blocked the river until rising waters tunneled through and finally washed away the sediment. Do sources actually say the earthquake may be related to "either the...formation or destruction"? The two sources cited a bit after these sentences don't seem to make that specific a statement. I might reword to just saying there might be a "link" without the "formation or destruction" bit, unless there's another source? And the bit about how long it took for the river to "break through the barrier"--only the O'Connor source cited seems to get into this, and if my reading of it is right he says the river would overtop in 3-8 months, given modern discharge rates, after which the incision of a new channel would begin. His comment about "years" seems to be for the creation of a new channel after overtopping. Our text here says up to "several years" for "the river to break through the barrier". So there seems to be a difference of meaning--wouldn't overtopping and the start of new channel incision be "breaking through"? Also something could be said about the "landslide complex" of which the Bonneville Slide is just the most recent, as described in Reynolds. Finally, do any "scientific" sources claim the river actually "tunneled through" the barrier, forming a "bridge"? I don't think the sources cited in this passage say that, do they? Perhaps the words "tunneled through" should be changed to something less specific? Anyway, I'll try to do work on this passage when I find the time. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the great work, Pfly. A couple specific replies: I put in the bit about the Cascadia earthquake leading to the destruction of the bridge, but that was before I realized how far from being a RS the Suite 101 article is. (That's the only place I've seen that.) And the "tunneled through" bit comes from native legend, not, as you suggest, a scientific source.
So, those two items should probably be removed.
You do a really good job of breaking down the various issues. I'll try to rework the text to reflect your research. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This would be good to find. -Pete (talk): "The Bridge of the Gods in Fact and Fancy". by Ella Clark in the Oregon Historical Quarterly N. 53 (1952).

Proposed new text for the "geology" section

Here's a suggestion for how the Slide should be covered in the Geology section. I'm hoping we can agree on the text first, and then cite the facts as appropriate -- trying to do both at once was causing me a major headache! How does this look to everyone? -Pete (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


That looks good to me, though I'd suggest three changes. The distances need conversions to metric as follows: 3.5 miles (5.6 km) and "about 1 mile (1.6 km) south". I also think it would be good to make clear whether the debris was 3.5 miles from bank to bank or 3.5 miles along the length of the river. I believe it means along the length because I don't think the gorge is that wide, but I'm just guessing. In either case, maybe it would be good to give the size of the debris pile (width, length, depth), if known. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks basically good to me too. A couple of thing though. The massive earthen dam was created by the Bonneville Slide alone. The text suggests that the landslides together formed the dam. Maybe the debris of earlier slides made it easier for the Bonneville slide to dam the river but I don't think anyone really knows that kind of detail. So maybe wording like, "A series of landslides on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge near Table Mountain sent debris into the gorge. The most significant and most recent landslide is known as the Bonneville Slide, which formed a massive earthen dam." And then something like, "the idea that the debris was formed by several landslides is relatively recent, ..." My wording here is rough--there's chaos in the my house, I've only got a minute! Also, I still find the phrase "tunneled through" troublesome. I don't think I've seen a source say there was a tunnel, outside those based on the native oral histories. O'Connor writes about "overtopping". I suspect no one knows exactly how the breach occurred. Otherwise, I think this is a great improvement. Hopefully I'll find some less chaotic time later. Pfly (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Note I tweaked the text to accommodate both these bits of feedback. -Pete (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I just added a few more tweaks. Almost there. I'll try to find time to add the appropriate citations. I'll also see if I can make at least a stub for Greenleaf Peak. It would be nice to not see any redlinks. Time, however, is hard to come by when the days are filled with a 15 month old and a nearly 4 years old boy. Egads. Pfly (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm slowly working on this, in the little slices of time I have. One question though--do we have any reliable sources for the native oral histories? The web pages I've found on related articles don't look like they'd qualify as RS under FA. I could probably find a book that would work, but don't know when I'd be able to get to a bookstore or library to see. Any good sources online? It's probably not required for this geology paragraph, but some mention would be good, and good for the indigenous people section about the bridge, right? Pfly (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all you're doing, I really appreciate you making the time! If you're budgeting limited minutes, I'd request that you focus on attaching the right sources to the paragraph in the geology section. It seems like you have the best handle on that, and the best access to good sources. I don't think the redlink is a problem; personally I think an FA should have a few redlinks, to introduce the reader to the idea that there's still work to be done, and they're welcome to jump in. That may be a fringe view, but at least, I don't think they pose a problem. Plus, some like the article on the 308 reports will take a ton of research, so let's not set our sights to high at the moment -- as I've heard said, just run Refrigerator Perry up the middle for a couple of yards, maybe we can get this thing knocked out :)
As for Indian legends, I have seen good sources in libraries and bookstores, but don't have ready access. But I'll take that one on, and get my hands on a better source either today or tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Source cites, yep, precisely my plan! Pfly (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And hey, at least one story from the oral tradition is related in one of the Richard Hill sources, and mentions of the legends/mythology as being linked to the slide and including the notion of a "bridge" etc, are in some of the other sources too. So that's enough for anything I had been intending to say/cite. Guess I hadn't read those parts of the sources as closely until today. Reading the 4 or 5 sources again gave me a better understanding of the whole thing. It looks like the main 4 people studying the date have been working together and cooperating, but have come up with different results using different dating methods, and seem to acknowledge that further work is needed to resolve the discrepancy. Anyway, yes, I'll just be added cites with minimal or no rewording. Perhaps later today. On the other hand, the Bridge of the Gods page could be again worked over, if I get around to it. And, on Greenleaf Peak, ok sure, redlinks are fine then? Fine with me! I have noted though that none of the sources I've been reading mention Greenleaf Peak, unless I missed it. They all focus on Table Mountain. I'll check again and if I can't find a source specifically mentioning Greenleaf Peak perhaps I'll remove its name altogether. Pfly (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Very cool! I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Greenleaf and Table were both originally one mountain, and that the slide split 'em in two…but I have no idea where I read that, or how reliable the info was. As for Indian legends: I distinctly remember flipping through a book at Multnomah Falls that described how the gods made the bridge and permitted people to use it, on the provision that they interact peacefully; and that they did cooperate in gathering food etc. for a while, but then got to squabbling, and that was (part of) the reason the gods destroyed it. It'd be nice to track down that book, or that story somewhere else. I also remember another source that specifically mentioned tunnels, and how people would lash their canoes together to go through the tunnels…but now that I think about that, it sounds more like a deep, narrow channel (because a full tunnel would probably be full of water, no?) and, obviously, an oral history is not evidence supporting geologic history. But, that's probably why "tunneling" was in there to begin with, I probably added that after reading that story.
Sorry to descend into anecdote, I think I'm close to being wikibonked. Looking at all these details all at once is hard for my poor little brain... -Pete (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, replaced the old paragraph on the Bonneville Slide with the new one, with citations and a few minor text changes. A few comments (no need to read for the wikibonked!):

While putting the cites in it occurred to me that the two articles by Richard Hill from The Oregonian, while full of useful info and clearly accurate (at least once you've read the papers by the people Hill is mainly writing about), may not seem strongly reliable sources compared to the others I used. After all, The Oregonian is a newspaper not an academic journal or report from the likes of WA Dept of Natural Resources Geology Division, etc. And unlike the other sources used, Hills's articles don't use footnotes or end with a reference bibliography, etc. All the claims in the text I added and sourced to him can also be found in more "academic" sources. But his articles say a number of interesting things not found in the other sources, so I wanted to keep them. Any reader curious about learning more would do well to read Hills's articles. They would also be useful for use in articles like Bridge of the Gods (land bridge), Cascade Rapids, and perhaps others like Missoula Floods (apparently the floods' scouring of the gorge made landslides, especially near Table Mountain, so geologically common and huge) Anyway, this all is why I "doubled sourced" a couple things.

None of the sources specifically said that the Cascade Rapids were inundated by Bonneville Dam. The statement probably doesn't really need a reference but I didn't like the way the paragraph had a single unsourced sentence at the very end. So I found a new source that said it explicitly, and also said how the "drowned forest" of trees known to have died at the time of the landslide was also inundated by the dam. So I added a brief mention of that too. It was tricky to word it in a terse yet clear way. I think it works even though I wanted to write more about the "drowned trees", how they came to be drowned and why they are so useful for dating the landslide. For the sake of brevity I didn't. On the Bridge of the Gods page perhaps I'll get into it more.

I didn't add anything about Indian stories in this Geology section paragraph. I'll take a look at the Indigenous people section and see if anything there could be improved or better sourced. A couple of the sources I've been reading get into the Indian legends, complete with Mt Hood and Mt Adams using the bridge to get at each other to fight for the love of St Helens, causing another god to destroy it, and such like. (I should have more time soon--preschool starts tomorrow!)

On Greenleaf Peak and the redlink thing--for some reason I thought it was the only redlink in the entire article, even though I knew that wasn't the case. I did leave it out of the new text, but at least one source did mention it, so perhaps it can be restored. But the info in that source was less about Greenleaf Peak and more about Red Bluffs, a "scarp area just below Greenleaf Peak".

Ok, ok, sorry for rambling on. I rather enjoyed working on this bit. Pfly (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortening

It popped into my head just now that we could shorten the 130-kb Columbia River article, as suggested in a general way at FAC, by moving all those tributary stats (the collapsing chart) to a separate article. This would shorten the main text and the reference section without changing the narrative flow. Readers interested in more data could click the link to the separate article. Thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to remove something that substantial hastily. The chart has value, it illustrates the tributaries mentioned in the text in comparison to smaller, but significant ones. (I don't object in theory to this sort of suggestion, but would rather consider it on its own when our minds are not clouded by an FA push.) Also, it wouldn't substantially shorten the article…it's not an enormous block of text.
This did turn my attention to that last section though, and I made a few adjustments to the final paragraph (splitting it into two, and adjusting the wording.) Also, I've always been a little perplexed by the final statistic. Is the Pend Oreille 37% by discharge of the *total* flow of the river below the confluence, or is it 37% of the flow of the *Columbia* above the confluence? Querying the linked database looks a little complicated, which makes it tough for me to confirm/clarify…and I'm sure other readers would have the same difficulty. Can we make that a litle more clear? -Pete (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
37% of the flow of the *Columbia* above the confluence is correct, actual numbers might help - querying the database cited I got Columbia above the confluence = 71,100 cubic ft/s; Pend Oreille = 26,400; Columbia just below the confluence = 99,150; 37% is comparing the first two figures. Kmusser (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Karl! I'll tweak the text to make that a little clearer. -Pete (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Right; I was attempting to show how the two largest tributaries (Snake and Pend Oreille) were fairly close to the size of the main stem at their respective confluences; partially because there was some confusion among early explorers and cartographers about which branch was the main stem--Lewis and Clark thought it was either the Snake or Pend Oreille if I recall (which they named the Lewis Fork and Clark Fork), not that our article mentions anything about this history. When I added those stats I thought the Pend Oreille was close to being half the size of the main stem at their confluence, like the Snake is. But it turned quite a bit smaller than I expected. I put the stat in anyway. It could be taken out if it doesn't serve much of a purpose. On the other hand I don't think any other tributary comes close to even the Pend Oreille's size proportional to the main stem at confluence. I also thought that perhaps the size of the Pend Oreille may be a little known and underappreciate factoid--at least I had been surprised when I learned about it. That the Snake is quite large was pretty obvious. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I might have a bit of time right now; will think about that geology text a bit more. Pfly (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's something. Maybe I am misunderstanding Wikipedia:Article size, but if my calculation is correct the size of the article's "readable prose" is only 54 KB. I roughly cut the text down to readable prose for editing and seeing the size here: User:Pfly/Sandbox2c. Pfly (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I had to rush off somewhere and didn't run that calculation, but removing such a little bit wouldn't help with the overall length. Sending it off to its own corner was an idea but probably not such a good one, on reflection. Thanks for doing the math, Pfly. Finetooth (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I think I need a day off. My message above makes no sense, I see this morning. The whole article has 54 KB of readable text. Thus it's fine and needs no shortening. I agree. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, well a thousand thanks to both you and Pete for doing so much work on this since the FA nom. I feel slightly guilty for lighting the fuse and then not having a lot of time. I'd never been involved in an FA nom before and was quite curious to see how things went, and though this article would be especially interesting to see go through the process since I've worked on it more than almost any other article (but not close to as much as you two have), and because of the "team-effort" of past work (even if, alas, you two have been doing almost all the FA nom work). But ok, I don't feel too guilty since I had intended to make the FA nom after the week of camping and out of town guests we had in our house until a couple days ago! In any case, I wanted to thank both of you again. I've certainly learned a lot about the FA nom process, the kind of work likely to come up (alt text... !). I've been impressed by not just the work you've both done, but your general kindness toward others. I like to think of myself as friendly and peace-seeking on Wikipedia, but your higher standard is one I aspire to. Finally, by all means, take a break if you want! No need to get wikibonked! It seems to me that nearly all the issues raised at the FA nom page have been addressed. There are only a few remaining, I think. Starting tomorrow I should have more and longer pieces of time with which to address the few things left hanging. For a number of them I already have possible sources that might work, or sources that will work with slight rewordings of the statements being made. So yea--thanks! Pfly (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, and thank you for this latest round! I think it's worked well up till now for everyone to do what they're able to when they're able to...so no worries! And the help on the geologic history is especially helpful, it's obviously been a tricky area.
I will be downtown this afternoon, and should be able to look up a couple Indian legends at the library. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I was just considering that topic. I just looked through the nom page again and the only remaining issues of note seem to be the common-place.org ref and the lack of a ref for the notion the bridge of the gods "permitted increased interaction..." If the latter is part of oral history and/or anthropologist speculation, it should be fairly easy to source and reword slightly. I'll look into it unless you beat me to it. The common-place.org ref is for two statements, that 1) an estimate 15-20 million salmon passed through Celilo Falls each year, and 2) that (due to this) Celilo Falls was "one of the most productive fishing sites in North America". I did some looking for a source on the 15-20 million salmon estimate, but have not yet found anything specific to Celilo Falls and numbers of fish (sources about pounds of fish caught by natives is a bit different, but could be used with some rewording)--but I haven't looked all that hard yet. The other claim, that Celilo Falls was one of the most productive fishing sites, shouldn't be hard to source. I haven't looked yet but will. And that looks like the only remaining issues of note. I wrote a little defense of the OHS Quarterly, for what it's worth. The only other items not struck through are either things we've taken care of already or such minor points they seem basically non-issues to me. In other news, I actually got to sleep in today, aaahhh, pre-school. :-) Pfly (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oop, just noticed the common-place.org page doesn't say 15-20 million salmon at Celilo, but 15-20 million "fish" annually for the entire Columbia. Hmmm... working... Pfly (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC?

I've been watching this article and the wonderful collaborative work for quite some time now. Just wondering: Will the article ever be put up for FAC? ;-) Regards, --X-Weinzar (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about that the other day. Why not put it up for FAC now? Sure there are some things that were discussed and not finished, and I personally have next to no time these days. But unless there is something significant enough to stop the process, why not just go ahead? Pfly (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The main thing that's holding me back is minimal coverage of Native Americans along the river. I think that's probably enough to prevent FAC. Still, I suppose I could fit in a trip to the library during a FAC and expand the section -- I don't know that it would take a tremendous amount of research to flesh out that section. I would certainly welcome the amount of community feedback that would come with a FAC, and suspect with a little tinkering this would pass. So, I suppose I'm on board. Thanks for the nudge, X! -Pete (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll help if I can with more proofreading or just adding a voice to the cheerleading squad. Finetooth (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I'm tempted to start it myself although I can't recall even a single edit to this article ;-) Pete, how about you start it? If I recall correctly, you've already drafted a nomination like years ago ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I too wanted to improve the Native American info. I worked on it (offline) for a while until I got bogged down in details and confusion. Seems to me to be acceptable as it is. We can try to improve it even if the FAC works out. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
In re the Native American/First Nations stuff, I've had a problem with the lede for quite a while because only the Chinookan language name is given, and actually only one dialect-version of it; originally it said "the Native American name for the river is....", as if only that name existed and in fact as if it were still in use (Chinookan is a dead language....). One of the Chinook Jargno lexicons does have a name for it, I'll try and look it up, it might just be a variant e.g. Wihml maybe. But upriver Chinookan, i.e. Wasco-Wishram has a different name for it than downriver Chinookan (Cathlamet, Clatsop) and doubltess the names in Yakama, Klickitat, Cayuse etc are all different again, as also the Ktunaxa (which is an entirely different language group from either Salishan or Chinookan or Sahaptian), and culturally it's quite common for a river/body of water not to have one name but several, depending on where along it you are. In that context, the name for Kettle Falls (forgotten just now) is probably similar across the several different groups who frequented that fishing spot; I've seen that name, probably Okanagan or Colville or Sinixt or Sanpoil (again, all closely related and probably sharing a similar term) but it may be that the river has no particualr name, but the rapids/fishing ground does. I'm unaware of the Shuswap name for it, but there must be one, adn tehre's likely a Blackfoot name for it as they frequented the Big Bend (upper Big Bend) before the white man came; I'll find a cite as to their presence somewhere, I see it all the time....also somewhere in a BCGNIS listing, but I'm not sure which, there was a mention of an early fur expedition's notations about a large rock fortification or other earthwork, plus a dam/holding pool, constructed near the Kootenay-Columbia confluence at Castlegar; current Sinixt literature makes no mention of it and whatever it was it's likely covered over by Castlegar or one of its "suburbs"......similarly although part of the Ktunaxa claim, taht area does not have a resident Ktuanxa population now (nearest is Creston). Also, not quite on teh same tick but equally ethno-historical, the role fo teh Doukhobors in the lower reaches of the Canadian Columbia and its nearby tributary valleys is highly notable, and the Brilliant Suspension Bridge could not only use an article, it shoudl be mentioned in this article....these are just some thoughts towards FAC, if I think of more I'll be back of course....Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
here is the main resource link for the Brilliant Suspension Bridge, in case someone would like to do up its article; there are probably BC Archives (p.d. tl|Canada-50) photos available for it.....Brilliant, British Columbia is long overdue, I'll try and start it later today, even just as a stub. Likewise Fort Shepherd, cant' remember if I or anyone started that yet....Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning that names in Palus or Shoshone or Nez Perce or other more inland tribes for the Snake or Clark Fork etc are all valid in the native cultural context; it's our designation that distinguishes the main stream of the Columbia from its tributaries; in e.g. the Shoshonean viewpoint the South Fork/Snake is pretty much teh same river as the lower. Again, our cultural distinctions do not necessarily equate to the native perceptions/nomencalature....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Any news? ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been a long time now. Yes there are things that could be expanded. Will such things prevent FAC? I'm thinking we might as well try and see. Unless someone brings up a good argument against it I am thinking of submitting a nomination "soon"--within a week or three. And, um, I mean it this time! Maybe I'll get to writing up a nomination over this coming weekend. If not then after a camping trip next week. Ready? Or not? Pfly (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (and here's a link to Pete's older nomination draft, for kicking my own memory if nothing else: Talk:Columbia River/FAnom). Pfly (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still willing to help in any way that I can. I'd love to see this one make it to FA. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I'm done dawdling. Pfly, thanks for digging up that old nom...I couldn't remember where that was, that was one of the things holding me back. I'll put in the nom tonight, promise. Thanks to you all for your persistence :) -Pete (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh.. okaydoke. Looking at the nomination draft this evening I thought of mentioning the peer review and maybe that editors have been working on it for not just months but years really--or perhaps something about how a burst of work about a year ago was done with the intention of FA submission and that while the work was finished (basically) the nomination was not made--but that during the year or so since there have been no major changes to the article, demonstrating it is stable, if nothing else. Pfly (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent points, yes, I'll get those in there. -Pete (talk)
Brain is not fully functioning, must sleep. But I'll get to this over the weekend, for sure! -Pete (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've finally made the nomination. Any of you who want to add your name to the co-nom, feel free! Here we go… -Pete (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Super! I'm glad you made the nom, Pete. You've done a tremendous amount of work on the article and deserve high praise for it. Kudos to Pfly as well for re-lighting the fire. Finetooth (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Great--I was slightly worried we might get stuck in the process of improvement--a process which might never end as nothing is ever absolutely perfect. So how nice to come back from a camping trip (near the source of a Columbia tributary no less) and find that it's going ahead! Our camping visiting friends will be here for some days more, but I hope to find some time to assist as needed. Pfly (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Being BOLD here, I think that Finetooth and Pfly should be added as conoms to the FAC - the three top editors are Finetooth, Pete and Pfly, and they are also the three top contributors to the FAC and the edits associated with it. Great work everyone! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have zero experience with the FA nomination process. I saw Pete say others were welcome to add their names, but I didn't have a clue what doing so would mean, so I didn't. I have no urge to collect... credit? But now I'm curious... what would it mean to be a conominator? Pfly (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've only been through a few, and it's been a while. But here's my thought on the matter (and FWIW I thoroughly agree with Ruhrfisch). Being a nominator is generally understood to mean something along the lines of "I've put a lot of work into the article, and I think it's worthwhile. And I'm willing to back that belief up with some diligent work improving it if anybody says different." In other words, pretty much exactly what you and Finetooth have done. I'm not sure if it's common for co-noms to be added this deep in the process, but I certainly wouldn't see any problem with that.
If and when we get to FA, you and Finetooth will be able to say "I busted my butt to get that article to FA." Attaching your name as co-nom would be a good piece of that story to have in the enduring record. -Pete (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It is mostly recognition of your efforts and the chance for bragging rights - there is also WP:WBFAN. Sometimes the FAC director or delegates will recognize someone's contributions by listing them at WBFAN even though they were not formally listed as a co-nominator (happened to me with one article where the nominator did very little and I stepped in and did much of the work at the FAC). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to be a co-nom, and I'll add my name in a few minutes. Thanks, Pete and Ruhrfisch, for suggesting this. I hope Pfly adds his too. Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, we almost edit conflicted over it. Thanks for the suggestion and encouragement. This article is way at the top of the list of edit counts for me, so sure, why not? Thanks again. Pfly (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Celilo Falls and stats on fish numbers

Working on this bit of text, mainly to address questionable common-place.org ref (nowiki-ing out the ref codes):


I found a source that comes close to the points in the above text, but not quite. So posting this possible rewording here for further refinement before editing main page:


The main point lost here is that Celilo Falls was "one of the most productive fishing sites in North America". I'll look for a source for that claim. (added source for this, noting "inland fishery") Minor rewording of the proposed text above might help (eg, the annual catch figure is for the whole river not just Celilo I assume). Pfly (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Made this change. Pfly (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wimahl in geobox as "other name"

Very minor question--now that Wimahl has been moved to the indigenous section and another indigenous name added, should Wimahl stay at the top of the geobox or be taken out? Doesn't matter to me, just noticed it and wondered. Pfly (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I took it out. I also added "River of the West" as a nickname (but not in the title area, where Wimahl was). -Pete (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for bridge of gods and increased interaction

I think I found a source for the sentence, "The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away." Pages 13-14 of Columbia River Gorge: National Treasure on the Old Oregon Trail by Cheri Dohnal (link should go to page 13 in Google Books) says, among other things, Native tribes of the area called the dam "The Great Crossover", and it later became known as the "Bridge of the Gods", and ...local Indians of the nineteenth century claimed to have ancestors who used the bridge to meet with others in a great tribal council, and it is a part of their oral history, and All legends about the Bridge of the Gods seem to hold a common thread,...found in the Great Spirit, who built the land bridge to allow native brothers to visit with one another. Those statements seem to be specific enough. The only thing I am not sure about is whether the book is a RS or not. It's geological description of the bridge of the gods is poor (eg, the landslide came from a mountain in Oregon, and other things like that), but the native stories told are much like the versions I've seen in a number of other sources. It also has a tale about canoes going through the bridge/tunnel, which I hadn't seen before (except you mentioned something about seeing a story like that, Pete). I'm going to add it to the article and mention so on the FA nom page. Wanted to mention it here first though, and that the geology of the bridge of the gods gave me pause. But then the book is more about stories than science and the sentence needing a ref is likewise about stories. Seems fine. Pfly (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Great find! Yes, I understand where you're coming from on RS. However, Arcadia Publishing is at least not a fly-by-night, with over 5,000 books on local history published since 1993, and with positive reviews from the AP and the NYT. I agree that in this context of recounting oral histories, it is sufficiently reliable; it would not be reliable in a geological context. Ideally, we would find something from a recognized anthropologist or ethnographer…but in my opinion, this is sufficient until we do. (Water backed up to Idaho?? That seems...implausible. Especially with all those scabland coulees in between to fill...) -Pete (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked into the author, publisher, and book a bit more and yes, it does seem a fine source for the stories of Indian oral histories. There's a reference section at the end which begins with a number of sources on Indian legends and such-like (can only view the first page in Google Books). The author seems more of a teller of tales specific to the local region and probably not much of a geologist. Reading again it looks like she is vaguely conflating the Missoula Floods with the Bonneville Slide, and the Missoula Flood era lakes with the landslide impounded river. Her telling of Indian legends looks fine and much like other sources; what is nice is how she specifically points out the role of the bridge in cross-river interaction. On rereading just now I noticed she does not tell the tale of canoes going through the tunnel/bridge like I thought. That is in another source I was considering: Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest, by Ella E. Clark, Robert Bruce Inverarity. Page 23 (linked) has a tale involving lashing canoes together for passing through the tunnel under the Bridge of the Gods--apparently a very long and dark tunnel. This book's Bridge of the Gods tales, pages 20-25 or so, could probably also serve as a reference, if needed/desired. There are fairly explicit statements about the bridge permitting and/or being created for increased interaction. Like on page 21: ...the Great Spirit...said, "I have built a bridge over the river, so that you and your people may visit those on the other side...", and It was a broad bridge, wide enough for many people and many ponies to walk across at one time. For many snows the people were at peace and crossed the river for friendly visits. Also, comments in this book about how a vast lake "east of the mountains tore a hole through the range", forming a tunnel (and the Columbia River itself apparently!) make me wonder whether Cheri Dohnal got some of her geological info from the source mentioned in this book, The Bridge of the Gods in Fact and Fancy, in Oregon Historical Quarterly, March 1952. I think you mentioned that one, Pete. It doesn't seem to be online. Too bad, now I'm curious. Pfly (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking a little more I think I will add a ref to "Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest". It is by Ella E. Clark, who also wrote "The Bridge of the Gods in Fact and Fancy". Some googling suggests that her work collecting native oral histories is something of a classic standard. Pfly (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples section

Well Pfly, I see we were working slightly at cross-purposes. I just spent the afternoon at the library, tracking down some of those elusive citations and also learning some other important bits of context (e.g. that Celilo Falls was at the border of two significant cultural/language groups). I expanded the section a bit, because some of these new pieces seemed very important.

I'll see about merging your text in with what's currently there. Sorry I didn't think to look here before I started in with my slash-and-burn edits!

I think we're getting very close. -Pete (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. My only goal was to find a source to replace the common-place.org cite that was questioned as maybe not a RS. Not being able to exactly find one I ended up rewording a bit. Still not happy I just posted what I had here, and since then have not had time to work on anything. I briefly looked into some of the oral history stories about the bridge of the gods, looking for a strong source for the notion that the bridge increased interaction between tribes on either side of the river. The stories do suggest that, but not quite as explicitly as I was wanting, so I didn't get too far. I've seen at least some of your edits to the section (haven't looked at the more recent slashes and burnings). It's good--the section was one of the weaker ones. Mainly I was just pleased to find a source that said Celilo Falls was, perhaps, the most productive (inland) fishing site of the continent. Ok, almost time to read "But Not the Hippopotamus" and get kiddo one to bed. Pfly (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't know if you've seen this older book... I haven't looked closely but it may be useful/interesting: The Columbia River: its history, its myths, its scenery, its commerce, by William Denison Lyman. Full view at Google Books. Pfly (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oop, one more thing before Hippo Time. One of your recent additions says "The Salish and Nez Perce peoples acquired domesticated horses from the Spanish in about 1730", sourced to People of the Dalles. Several books I have say horses spread north from Spanish New Mexico via Indian tribes trading amongst themselves. One book gets into a lot of detail about the spread of horses to the Shoshone people, from which they spread to other northern tribes like the Nez Perce and Salish tribes like the Flatheads. The Shoshones got horses from other Indians, not directly from the Spanish. So... just wondering if your source says the Salish and Nez Perce got horses from the Spanish directly. I suspect the sentence ought to be rephrased so it doesn't suggest direct contact and trade. Ya? Pfly (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Aah, I think it's likely that account is consistent with what I was reading today…I may have mis-paraphrased it. I thought it was a little odd that the Spanish had come that far up through the basin. I don't have the source in front of me now, left it at the library…but I'll reword as you suggest, as I think it only said "from Spanish sources" or something along those lines. Good catch! Okay, go tend to the hippo…I can only imagine what kind of crazy adventure he gets into…OR DOESN'T!! -Pete (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Rereading just now, thought I'd add a comment about the spread of horses. I'd always heard that Indians got horses from the Spanish, by trade and/or by capturing escaped horses and figuring out for themselves how to ride and care for them; and then horses spread among the Great Plains Indians far to the north. Recently I read a book about the Comanche (The Comanche Empire), the first and perhaps most thoroughly horse-based Indians. The book gets into how Indians first acquired horses. It seems that the Spanish did not want Indians to have horses and trading horses was forbidden. New Mexico didn't have enough horses for its own needs anyway. It wasn't until the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 that the spread of horses began. The Pueblo Indians had some equestrian knowledge and skill, having lived under Spanish rule and permitted to learn and use horses for the Spanish. When the Spanish fled New Mexico in 1680 they left behind most of the horses, which fell into the hands of the Pueblo peoples, who were more than willing to trade them to other Indians. Since they farmed and lived in towns the Pueblos didn't take on the "horse culture" thing but for tribes to the north with traditions of nomadism and bison hunting horses offered a radical transformation of lifestyle. The Comanche were not the first to acquire horses in quantity but they were the first to completely abandon older traditions in favor of a fully horsed way of life focused on bison hunting (and raiding the returned Spanish for more horses). It's interesting to compare the Comanche with the Mongols--horses enough to put every single person on one; a "cavalry" and "cavalry raid" way of life. Horses thrived on the southern plains, the Comanche thrived and soon had a huge surplus of horses. The spread northward was largely from Comanche sources. The Lakota might be more famous today as the quinessential Plains Indian people, but they basically copied the culture earlier invented by the Comanche. It is common to hear that Indians acquired horses "from" the Spanish, but that "from" was mostly indirect and unwilling. It's an interesting bit of history. Not important for this article, but I couldn't help writing about it given the discussion here. Pfly (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fascinating -- thanks for that!! Almost as interesting as the hippo -- I'm still wondering how that hippo wound up having fun though, he seemed in such a sour mood.... :) -Pete (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The last line is "but not the armadillo"... poor thing. Pfly (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's titled "But Not the Hippopotamus"--everyone else has fun, but not the hippopotamus, until the end anyway. But, hippo now tended and here's one last thing for the day. I looked at the books I have with info on the spread of horses and before I knew it I had reworded your text, merged in the horse-info I had long-ago added to the end of the indigenous section, and expanded things somewhat. Also, I moved the horse info to a new paragraph just before the one about "encounters with foreigners" because the spread of horses and Plains Indian horse culture came to the region before the foreigners arrived. I changed your Salish to Flathead ("Salish" is such a broad term and I can't imagine what other Salish people acquired horses by 1730; anyway Meinig explicitly mentions them) and added the Cayuse. Also removed the word "domesticated"--all horses are domesticated. There are feral horses commonly called "wild horses", but true wild horses are different and played no role in Indian history. Also mentioned the spread of equestrian knowledge, like horse training--what good would acquiring horses be without also learning how to train them for riding, etc? And the spread of equestrian skills leads to the spread of the Plains Indian culture that emerged on the Great Plains around 1700. So I mentioned that too and how it spread "unevenly" into the Columbia region. More could be said still--such as how Celilo/The Dalles became a major contact point between the new horsed plains culture lifestyle/economy and the ancient riverine salmon culture/economy. But for now I'm done. Pfly (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm back from my 36-hour ramble. I bought another camera and went on a photo shoot down the Alsea River. I don't quite know what I'm doing with the camera yet, but some of the results will show up on Wikipedia here and there. Meanwhile, you guys have been doing great with the remaining Columbia River questions (as well as hippos). I should disappear more often. :-) Finetooth (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Most excellent, thanks! So, here's an illustration of what it is to be wikibonked: as I was incorporating that stuff, I had the inescapable feeling that I'd recently been reading or heard about horses in the region very recently, but it didn't make sense -- I couldn't think what sources I'd run across recently that mentioned such a thing. Thought maybe I'd half-heard something on NPR. As it turns out, it must have been when I was reading this article that one last time before nominating it. When you can't keep the encyclopedia you're working on separate from other sources, that's it -- bonk bonk! -Pete (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we done?

I may have lost track of something, but are we done? We have two supports and, as far as I can tell, no remaining unaddressed comments. Should I ask User:Stifle if he or she is satisfied with our responses? Do we need to ask one of the other reviewers to look at the questions User:Ealdgyth left open for others to decide? Any other loose ends? Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't chase anybody down, but I'm not sure what's common in FA's. I think if Stifle wants to come back and weigh in, he/she will.
Looking at the sequence of FA's under review (newer ones are added to the top of the list), we still have about a dozen in front of us before a final decision is made. (I think they go more or less sequentially.) While two explicit "supports" is pretty slim, I believe the depth of review by those two and the fact that we've addressed the detailed comments by others speaks in favor of FA. I suspect we're not getting a lot of reviews because of the length and technical depth of the article; I know I tend to be a little daunted by the prospect of reviewing a long and detailed article.
My inclination is to sit tight and see what comes, though maybe I'll go explore a few recent closures and see if there's anything we should be aware of... BTW, very glad that you and Pfly added your names to the nom! -Pete (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel like all pending issues brought up have been more than addressed. Life got a bit busy again too, so, just watching now. Pfly (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ecological impact

Just a quick comment on this edit, which I reverted. In my view, it's not a great idea to talk about whether the ecological changes -- which have undeniably been extensive -- are "negative" in the lead. If you're a northern squawfish, you're probably pretty happy with the present ecological conditions. Now, personally, I happen to agree that the ecological impact has been tremendously negative, and I think most people would; but it's a value judgment nonetheless. I believe the lead section should present the basic facts, and leave room for the reader to fill in the gaps by reading on, or reading other sources. -Pete (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

F&f's detailed FAC comments on the lead

Fowler&fowler's comments:
  • 2. The river's heavy flow, and its large elevation drop over a relatively short distance, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity.
    • 2a.("large elevation drop over a relatively short distance" is vague, since we aren't told what this distance is.) So, either, "The river's heavy flow, and its large elevation drop over its relatively short course, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity." Or,
    • 2b. "The river's heavy flow, and its relatively steep gradient, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity."
  • 4. It has been used in various forms as a medium for transportation, and increasingly, for shipping various goods.
    • 4a. ("in various forms" is ambiguous. Does it refer to the medium or the forms of transportation?)
  • 5. The river system hosts numerous anadromous fish, which migrate between fresh water streams and the Pacific Ocean.
  • 5a. The river system hosts numerous species of anadromous fish, which migrate between the water streams and the Pacific Ocean.
  • 6. These fish—especially the various species of salmon—provided the core subsistence for natives; in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish.
    • 6a. (Tense shift; need present perfect.) "These fish—especially the various species of salmon—have provided the core subsistence for natives; in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish."
  • 7. The Columbia provided access to the Willamette Valley for explorers arriving by both land and sea, as well as transportation within the region, and the development of steamship lines linked communities along the river prior to the installation of railroads.
    • 7a. (Need to qualify "Willamette Vally;" otherwise, all too anonymous. Also, from "as well as transportation " onwards, the sentence is difficult to decipher. Please rephrase or break up into two sentences.) The first half might be better as: "The Columbia provided access to the fertile (and mineral-rich?) Willamette Valley for explorers arriving by both land and sea, ... "
  • 8. Public and private entities have heavily developed the river since the 19th century.
    • 8a. "entities" is vague. So is "19th century" since it spreads over a hundred years, better to say "early, mid-, or late 19th century, or the turn of the 20th century" (whichever formulation best describes it.) i.e. something along the lines of: "Since the mid-19th century, the river has been heavily developed by both the public and private sectors."
  • 9. The development, commonly referred to as taming or harnessing of the river, includes dredging and the construction of locks and canals for navigation by larger ships; the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, and flood control; nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power. These projects have had a tremendous impact on the ecology of the river, perhaps most notably through industrial pollution and various impacts on fish migration.
    • 9a.  :) What can I say? Please expand and break up into three, four, or even five sentences that provide some details to draw a reader in; otherwise, many readers will not get past the lead to the real treasures of the article.
  • General remark. I wonder if it might be worth having one footnote in the lead, next to "largest" in the first sentence, since readers are going puzzle over the term a little. Although you provide the term's three interpretations in the next three sentences, a footnote, that explicitly states the USGS's definition, "Rivers are considered large on the basis of one or more of three characteristics : total length from source to mouth, area of basin (watershed) drained by the stream, and average rate of flow (discharge) at the mouth." might be very helpful. It would have been for me when I first encountered the lead sentence.

All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Steele, Gary. “Climate change and the Columbia River Basin”. State of Washington Department of Ecology. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_climate.html>.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbia_River/Archive_5&oldid=1088793275"